[Elecraft] KXAT2 vs. Other Elecraft Transceiver ATUs -> Nomenclature

[Phil Wheeler]

I guess they'd have to avoid such as the names as 
those of the seven dwarfs -- and these days even 
"Grumpy, Snotty and Snort" might be problematic re 
copyrights and such.

Phil W7OX

On 5/24/16 5:23 PM, Guy Olinger K2AV wrote:
> It's their business, lock, stock and barrel. They could call their models
> Grumpy, Snotty and Snort if they wanted to. Ain't no laws and nuthin in the
> bible about it, except maybe can't name something with a cuss word or
> something on the FCC banned word list. No IEEE standards. Just so long as
> the copyright on the names ain't owned by someone else.
>
> I'm just glad they came out with a technology leap beyond FT1000MP et al. I
> sure have enjoyed the improvements. And they pushed Yakencom so hard they
> all had to deal with it to compete so aficionados of other brands are
> finally reaping the benefits of Elecraft progress.
>
> I'm at least a bit of a curmudgeon, maybe more than a bit, and they treat
> me nice anyway. So why should I complain about what combination they pull
> out of the letter/number soup to name their babies?
>
> SXG4 R2.3 Q
>
> Twiddy 5
>
> 3 Slock 75
>
> Names could be a LOT worse than KAT500.
>
> Me thinks some people will complain no matter what Elecraft does. They hate
> Elecraft so bad they can't stay off the Elecraft reflector.
>
> 73 Guy K2AV
>
> On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 7:18 PM, Mike Morrow <kk5f at earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> Phil wrote:
>>
>>> Interesting analysis, Mike -- though relating the various *AT* acronyms
>>> to rigs is a bit mind bending :-)
>> Don't I know it, Phil!  K1AT, K2AT, K3AT, KX1AT, KX2AT, KX3AT, etc. would
>> be clearer and cleaner.  Then, there's KAT100, KAT500, KXAT100...perhaps
>> K2AT100, K3AT500, KX3AT100 would be more obvious, or just K2AT1, K3AT5,
>> KX3AT1.
>>
>> This is only good-nature'd nitpicking...but after 17 years I still wonder
>> why a simple consistent nomenclature system is not used. :-)
>>
>> 73,
>> Mike / KK5F